20 week abortion ban struck down by court

dublinbay z6 (KS)May 22, 2013

Here is the info. about Arizona's abortion law I just received from a pro-choice group.

Today, the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco struck down Arizona’s abortion ban after 20-weeks. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this 20-week abortion ban is unconstitutional and violates US Supreme Court rulings that give women the right to terminate pregnancies until viability. There are several states which have similar abortion bans beginning at 20 weeks, however the 9th Circuit only has jurisdiction in the nine Western states.
This ruling is a great victory and Judge Marsha Berzon who was part of the judge panel wrote that “a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.” This decision should make it obvious to right-wing extremists that bans such as these are not constitutional and that women have a right to make their own medical decisions.

I am sharing this info. because some of your States, like mine, are considering passing or have passed the same 20 week abortion ban. Just as pro-choicers have contended, those bans will likely be ruled as unconstitutional.

For those wondering, the medical community has long agreed that "viability" occurs sometime between weeks 24-28. What anti-choicers have been trying to do with the recent plague of 20 week State bans is to change the definition of "viability" from week 24 (itself a conservative estimate by the medical community) to the much stricter measurement of week 20--a whole month earlier.

And for those also wondering about late-term abortion (those that occur after week 24--the accepted "viability" date), the Supreme Court ruled, some time ago, that there must be exceptions for the life or health of the woman and for gross fetal abnormalities.

Most of the 20 week abortion bans that have been passed at the State level do NOT allow those exceptions--another reason why those bans should be declared unconstitutional, though I do not know if that is what the federal court for Arizona declared on.

What it amounts to is the anti-choicers have been busy passing obviously unconstitutional anti-abortion laws. Why? Hard to say. Probably for the same reason the Republican House has voted--what is it--37 times (?) to ban Obamacare. Pointless activitiy since they know such actions will be nullified by the Supreme Court or by the President, depending on the type of action--but it makes them "feel good" and can be used for re-election purposes in conservative districts.

I don't think people wanting a 20 week old fetus to not be destroyed has anything to do with wanting to "feel good".

I think it's not wanting a 20 week old fetus to feel pain and lose it's life.

Click to link to view human development and find the photo at 20 weeks development, the fetus sucking it's thumb.

For those of us that have had the experience, try and remember what it feels like to have that life kicking in you and moving at 20 weeks. Remember how it made you feel, to know you were responsible for nurturing this life.

Then try to understand why there are people that object to an innocent life being destroyed at this stage of development, and it has nothing to do with politics or "feeling good."

I'm more apt to go with the information provided by the Supreme Court ruling, and that of my own medical doctors.

As we all know, the internet is loaded with any kind of information ones wishes to find... all one need do is use the "right" set of key words to search, and voila! One has their very own personal ideals and opinions, written by like minded people, right in front of them.

Everything on the internet should be taken with a huge load of rational, critical thought, common sense, and a very large grain of salt. One source does not make for "the whole truth"... especially where religious ideals or personal opinions meet legislative ones.

Being pro-choice, I feel that my body is mine... not anyone else's... and I refuse to be forced into anything not of my own choosing, or not of my own values and principles.

Judges Strike Down Arizona's 20-Week Abortion Ban The judges wrote that Arizona "may not deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at any point prior to viability," echoing the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 40 years ago that abortion should be legal up to the point that a fetus can survive outside of the womb, which is usually construed as 24 weeks.

Arizona ban on abortion after 20 weeks struck down by federal court Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violated a long string of US Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe vs Wade decision in 1973. The judge wrote that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the foetus is viable".

A baby can survive at 20 weeks. Does that baby get a choice on whether it's body belongs to him/her?

Since it's viability is considered 24 weeks by the medical establishment, which certainly does know far more than you do, Mrskjun, one would say that the fetus is totally dependent on the "body that it resides inside of" and, therefore, it is dependent on something else, some other living organism to keep it alive.

Doesn't sound like the fetus' body belongs to the fetus, but rather is dependent on the uterus it is implanted in for survival and if that is the case, than it is not in a decision making position.

The woman, whose uterus the fetus resides in, gets to make the decisions, prior to 24 weeks, which is the law and all the talk from the right wing and all the attempts of those that believe differently don't do anything to change the medical facts or the laws.

I will say over and over again no matter what the right-wing folks say, this decision is the woman's to make. No tear-jerking references to having felt a fetus move inside one (I have four children, so I have experienced that) or unscientific pipedreams about how early a fetus can be considered viable will change that reality.

There is no record of a baby surviving at 20 weeks. The youngest documented surviver was one day short of 22 weeks. At least that I can find.
Only one or two babies out of ten born before 24 weeks will survive.
That numbers increases to 7 or 8 after 24 weeks.
Most babies before 24 weeks do not have sufficiently mature lung tissue to survive. Preemie survival has been more or less stuck at this point for some time but I am sure that eventually they will figure out some sort of out of utero support.

the problem is that 20 weeks is a common point for an ultra sound and or amniocentisis if a problem is suspected-by then the baby is suffiently mature and large enough to tell if there are observable problems. Then you have 4 weeks to make a decision on what you have learned and find a doctor who can provide the abortion if that is deemed necessary-not an easy task.

a family i know was in that horrible situation...while the fetus was barely hanging on, the number of things wrong were piling up..a noted university suggested they do an abortion and it was done...this child wasn't less loved but loved enough to be let go...what the parents are doing is an autopsy so when the greiving process is over, they can hopefully have a child in the future...

Some people act like those who are pro-choice just don't care, and go around aborting fetuses for fun... while the truth is, and always has been, that no one is PRO-abortion! We're pro-CHOICE, which is a huge difference!

When issues arise that would make the fetus's life, if carried to term, a living hell due to medical issues or abnormalities, it's an extremely difficult choice to make... but as Susan points out, it takes a lot of love and compassion to be willing to LET GO of that fetus, knowing the baby will not have to suffer a life of pain, and will be at peace.

If the majority of the medical field states 24 weeks, then 24 weeks it is.

Twenty week fetus's do not survive. It sometimes takes that long in the womb to discover gross abnormalities and then the decision is made to abort.

I don't give a fig if the fetus is sucking it's thumb or not. That propaganda is the Right's shocking/talking points. I had two babies and felt them kick and loved every minute of being pregnant. However if technology was that advanced in the 60's and a gross abnormality was found, it would have been aborted. Then I would have tried for another.

I will tell you, I formed my opinion very early about abortion. It wasn't because anyone was talking about abortion, it was more about development. For some reason, in some science class, there was a preserved fetus at 12 weeks. Tiny little fingers with nails on them spoke to me from beyond. Little eyelashes and fuzzy hair on the human. I can think of nothing other than that image. I was really struck how very early on, the ball of cells was very human. Very human.

So take it from someone who knows abortions cannot be illegal, 20 weeks is a freaking long time. I'll reiterate what I said before. I knew I was pregnant at 5 weeks (All five times. And the third time I knew the moment it happened. The one that survived I just felt "different". I always knew he was a boy and I always knew what his name would be. We never ever discussed those things. Weirdness, but a connection!), and by 10 or so weeks, you've had enough time to decide. Much longer is just not needed. We're talking about a possible human life here. Not kitchen tile. Every moment they're growing.

Why it should be past 24 weeks is really wrong. 20 weeks is pushing it, but it can be the ground. Not too much farther back and not much farther forward.

No babies, anywhere in the world, born at 20 weeks, have survived to go home. They have all died. Two, maybe three, babies born at 21 weeks plus a few days, have survived.

Babies born before 22 weeks are thought to have almost no chance of surviving because their lungs, heart and brain are not sufficiently developed.

Survival Rates

Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival
Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival
Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival
From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology

Yes by all means let it live. The crazy right wing need something for target practice and something to whine about that the little crumb snatchers want their money. It must be timing. It is a little thumb sucking angel until it is born.

After it is born then they will give the little thumb sucker's brother a blue rifle to blow the little thumb sucker's head off. Or If the mother should go on welfare they will complain about those lazy mother's not teaching their children or complain about giving them a free lunch. Oh how they love those babies it really shows.

little"""Got a medically documented case of a 20 week old fetus being born alive and surviving? and I don't mean so called claims from the right wing"

mom"""No babies, anywhere in the world, born at 20 weeks, have survived to go home. Get your facts straight before you post."

lily""""""Twenty week fetus's do not survive."

If you read my post you might notice that I said "born alive". I didn't say anything about surviving to be an old person or surviving at all.. I'm speaking of breathing and moving when it comes out of the womans body. Then who makes the decision whether or not to pick up the scissors and snip the spine as gosnell did or should the "fetus" be allowed to just lay there and suffer until it dies?

Freedom of Reproductive Choice means that women who feel like demi or mrsk or rob do are free to choose NOT to have an abortion, and no one should force them to have one.

Freedom of Reproductive Choice also means that women who feel like the other posters on this thread are free to follow their own beliefs which means they are free to choose whether or not to have an abortion (before viability or in extraordinary circumstances after viability), and no one should force that woman to not have an abortion if that is her choice.

And many pro-choice women would freely choose NOT to have an abortion also. The point is that that is their own choice, not someone else's choice for her.

No matter how some of you feel personally, personal beliefs are not law. Freedom of choice is the law.

So I strongly recommend that anti-choicers do NOT get abortions since they are opposed to them. That is your freedom of choice.

I think it's not wanting a 20 week old fetus to feel pain and lose it's life -- and -- kill those little suckers while they're sucking their thumbs, but before their lungs are developed enough to sustain their life

As long as we are huffing and puffing, hypothesizing, hyperbolizing, and hyperventilating, here's my contribution:

Why is there an automatic assumption that terminating a pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks is due to malevolent wishes of the mother? No mention that the fetus might be gravely deformed, or that continuing the pregnancy might endanger the woman's life. Instead the women ceases to exist as an individual, and her role is solely to continue the pregnancy... because we all know that unforeseen medical conditions and situations never develop during this time.

Some of the anti-choice comments on the various threads regarding reproductive rights sound as if the underlying thought is that women should be punished for being autonomous sexual beings.

Lady Brat, no pro-choice person supports what Gosnell did, so quit bringing that up as a pro-choice position. The guy was a sicko!

According to the Supreme Court, a fetus becomes a person with all the civil rights you and I have the second it is born and can survive naturally on its own with the usual care from grown-ups--such as food and shelter (or with a reasonable amount of articial assistance, in some cases). Whether it will live very long or not afterwards is not the issue. If you want to spend $500,000 or more to keep a 20 week new-born alive by extraordinary artificial means (your insurance will not pay for most of that), that is your choice, but even then that 20 week new-born may not live very long. It is too undeveloped.

In a way, it's kind of like using extraordinary measures (expensive equipment that will leave you in debt up to millions of dollars) to keep 90 year old grandma alive. Modern medicine can do that in some cases, but many or even most people find that ugly and unnatural and even immoral and will choose to let grandma die naturally and peacefully. And that is often grandma's wish also.

No one recommends killing babies that are born, Lady Brat, so quit making up disgusting stories about the pro-choice position.

Rob, last time I looked at the Guttmacher Institute studies (they are the experts on statistical studies of abortion), here is the breakdown of abortions (rough percentages).

91 + percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester (through week 12)

8+ percent of abortions are performed in the second trimester (weeks 13-24). "Viability" begins at the end of the second trimester.

Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed in the third trimester.

Who typically gets abortion after the first trimester when the overwhelming majority of the abortions occur?

Second trimester abortions:
Woman discovers there is some awful deformity, often in connection with the testing typically done at week 20.
Teenagers--they often go into denial but have to face up to the fact they are pregnant as the 4th and 5th months roll around.
Incest or rape victims--again, many are into denial, but have to face up to the pregnancy during the 4th or 5th month.

Third Trimester abortions--remember, these are less than 1 percent of all abortions:
Life or health of the woman is in danger
Some terrible deformity in the fetus

I'm not sure, rob, why you are asking specifically about 15 weeks. In many cases, the abortions that occur after 15 weeks are the ones that are most desperately needed since often something serious is going wrong with the fetus or the woman's health.

Even if 15 weeks were a "reasonable" date to end all abortions, it would be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has declared that you can't take away a woman's right to reproductive choice until the fetus attains "viability"--and not in all cases after viability (as noted in the exceptions above)--so considering 15 weeks as a cut-off date is irrelevant--but if you personally feel that an abortion after 15 weeks is wrong, I would advise you to not violate your own personal beliefs and get an abortion after 15 weeks.

The constitutionality of abortion, however, has nothing to do with anyone's personal beliefs.

"Some of the anti-choice comments on the various threads regarding reproductive rights sound as if the underlying thought is that women should be punished for being autonomous sexual beings."

My opinion on that differs. Please cite "Some of the anti-choice comments" that "sound as if the underlying thought is that women should be punished for being autonomous sexual beings." And while you're at it, remember that if the label "Anti-Choice" is to be used instead of "Pro-Life", it would be only fair to describe your POV as "Anti-Life" instead of Pro-Choice."

Sounds like the jury's still out on the fetal pain factor. There are, of course, .lots of opinions and studies. The linked article points out that the SCOTUS has never taken pain into consideration.

From the link: "The hypothesis that human fetuses are capable of perceiving pain in the early stages of a pregnancy has not received sufficient evidence to be proven or disproven; the developmental stage of research and instrumentation is so far insufficient to this task. Some authors,[2] however, argue that fetal pain is possible from the second half of pregnancy: “The available scientific evidence makes it possible, even probable, that fetal pain perception occurs well before late gestation” wrote KJS Anand in the journal of the IASP (International Assoc for the Study of Pain).[3] The issue is considerably complicated by the usual difficulties in perceptual research of unresponsive subjects: 'Though techniques such as positron electron tomography scanning might reveal those parts of the brain that respond to a painful stimulus, this does not tell us what the individual is experiencing.'[4]

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[7] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be 'impossible to know' when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[8]

Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain.[5]

Also in 2005, Neil Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He questions the value of such data:

Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however, that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially incorrect.

He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized.[9] “A fetus,” Mellor told the NYTimes, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.” Nevertheless, several studies show that during pregnancy fetuses have phases of wake; and it is clear that even during sleep pain can be felt.[10]

There is also discussion among researchers about how pain is perceived over-all. Some researchers believe that because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, pain may not be sensed until after birth.[11] Other researchers argue that pain is felt during the second trimester of pregnancy.[12]

In 2001, a working group of the Medical Research Council (UK) in the United Kingdom called for more research regarding fetal pain.[13] According to the Daily Telegraph, Eve Johnstone, the chair of that working group 'makes a strong case for additional research.' Ms. Johnstone told the newspaper, 'We ought to study this carefully.'[14]

Though many researchers in the area of fetal development agree a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy,[5][6] developmental neurobiologists suspect that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) may be critical to fetal perception of pain.[11]

Fetal pain and abortion [edit]Scientific research generally indicates that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain until at least the 24th week.[15] Many pro-life activists strongly believe in the ability of a fetus to perceive pain, and have introduced legislation in line with this belief. However, fetal pain is not a major legal issue in the debate about abortion, and has not been a deciding factor in any US Supreme Court decision, including the 1973 Roe v. Wade.'"

I suppose one can say that a woman owns her body, owns her fetus, owns her child. If that's the case, then I suppose she should be able to raise her child any way she sees fit without interference.

I'm not talking about the fetus and mother being incompatible for health reasons, i.e., the pregnancy would kill the mother, or a fetus with something terribly wrong with it, like a giant head, I'm talking about a 'normal' pregnancy situation where the mother simply waited too long. Like birth control after the fact. In fact studies show around half of all women receiving a abortion have had at least one previous abortion. That sounds like birth control for these women, to me. That's a helluva method of birth control.

"And for those also wondering about late-term abortion (those that occur after week 24--the accepted "viability" date), the Supreme Court ruled, some time ago, that there must be exceptions for the life or health of the woman and for gross fetal abnormalities.

Most of the 20 week abortion bans that have been passed at the State level do NOT allow those exceptions--another reason why those bans should be declared unconstitutional, though I do not know if that is what the federal court for Arizona declared on.

gross foetal abnormalities....do those against abortion at 20 weeks have much idea of what is entailed in caring for a child with gross abnormalities?
Especially as you live in a country that does not provide much assistance for families raising a severely disabled child?

Over the course of the last 20 years (in the course of my work) I have seen many many many famileis destroyed by the physical , emotional and financial strain involved in caring for disabled children.

Other children not getting a fair share of parental attention etc etc.

I am CERTAINLY NOT ADVOCATING that foetesses with abnormalities be aborted routinely....BUT I DO FEL THAT THE MOTHER SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE AND NO ONE THAT HAS NOT WALKED IN THE SHOES OF THESE PARENTS SHOULD JUDGE THEM!

And that, Demi, is your choice, including calling a legal, medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy "murder".

Others do not agree with you and SCOTUS also doesn't agree with you either, nor does the majority of the voting public.

Women make the decision to terminate a pregnancy for a variety of reasons, and that decision is not made lightly but rather after carefully weighing all the options. Even then, it is a very difficult decision and no one but a woman in a situation to make that decision can ever even begin to understand what it is like or how the decision is made.

To even imply that one does or imply, let alone say I would never do that or condemn anyone that has made that decision, lacks the understanding or circumstances that would or could put a woman in the position to even think about the choice, let alone make it.

It never ceases to amaze me how the thought process is so different between those that call themselves "pro-life" and those of us that call ourselves "pro-choice".

Pro choice is so simple to understand. We support all women's right to decide for herself what will and will not be done to her body, control of her own personal reproductive health and the right to safe and legal termination of a pregnancy, within the laws set forth by SCOTUS under Roe v. Wade.
There is no one forcing anyone to terminate a pregnancy or not terminate a pregnancy. It is a choice that all woman need to have. We respect the right of those that disagree with what we believe, but we are not forcing them or anyone else to terminate a pregnancy.

On the other hand, those that call themselves "pro-live" want to force their personal, their religious beliefs onto everyone, onto every woman in this country and make any and all terminations of a pregnancy illegal. They do not have the respect for or belief that women should have the right to make this decision for themselves and demand that the ability to terminate a pregnancy be made illegal.
Of course that doesn't deal with the affect that such action would cause. Return to the "back alley abortion", women dying from the consequences of the "back alley abortion mills", and all the unwanted fetus' being forced to be born, all the handicapped "children" born and of course those "pro-lifers" don't give a hoot about those "children" once they are born, cause they suck the money out of the Federal government.

The vicious circle that the pro lifers want to end, but don't realize they are actually perpetuating with this idea of ending a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

That old saying, "walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me", sure applies here.

No one, and I mean no one has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the reason. No one and I mean no one has the right to turn a woman's body into a human incubator because the disagree with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

No one, should ever have the right to control another human being's body and what is and isn't done to it.

Why anyone would or could think otherwise is beyond understanding.

After 40 years, enough is enough of the attempts to turn back the clock and control a woman's body, the attempt to keep control over a woman and take away a woman's legal rights, her rights to privacy and her rights to control her own body.

Well, as Kate says, if anyone feels that abortion is murder, they definitely shouldn't have one. That's the freedom of choice we all have.

I, personally, would no more keep Grandma alive beyond her natural time of death through artificial means, than I would keep a fetus alive that stood no chance at having a halfway decent, normal life due to an ungodly abnormal genetic defect. In my eyes, those things are simply cruel and lack any sort of empathy.

I've seen enough genetic defects in my lifetime to know that it's a merciful thing to let some of them go. Some cannot be repaired or changed through surgery, and the chance of bringing certain alleles forward and keeping them in the gene pool for further reproduction is not always a wise thing to do.

But this is the beauty of the law as it stands... no one is forced to do that which goes against their beliefs.

And for the record, opossums also have opposing thumbs that the infants sometimes suck... so murdering the common possum should also be against your beliefs, if we're using thumb sucking as the ruler of measurement.

And for the record, opossums also have opposing thumbs that the infants sometimes suck... so murdering the common possum should also be against your beliefs, if we're using thumb sucking as the ruler of measurement.

*

I don't use thumb sucking alone as the measurement as to whether or not a life should be snuffed out.

Animals have nothing to do with this topic, unless you want to discuss murdering animals.

Ditto to littleones comments. All you pro lifers. I would never dream of telling you what to do with your body. If you become pregnant with a deformed child who will either not survive birth , be in terrible pain, or not have brain waves, then follow your beliefs. But your beliefs have no bearing on the way other women might think. Pro choice means you can do what you want with your body and so can someone who wants to terminate a pregnancy. Over 9 out of 10 are done in the first trimester. After that , I would guess, most are done because of the health of the mother is in danger or the fetus has a gross abnormality.

And we pro-choice people are just as horrified about the killing of babies born alive by the Phila. doctor. This just illustrates how back alley abortions happened before Roe.

I support every woman's right to make a choice but have trouble with abortions when the pre-abortion talk includes information about giving an injection into the uterus so the fetus aka blob of cells doesn't move or try to take a breath after being removed from the uterus.

Thanks Kate! I see that the overwhelming majority is way before then. I didn't pick 20 weeks, I might've picked 19, but even it was too close, because there may be times someone suddenly decides it's now or never, so does it before that time disappears. But a huge huge huge majority are early enough for the 20 week timeframe should make it less of a target to fight over.

It should be an easy week to get to since there are so few done then. Right?

When we had kids (18-21 years ago), the first recommended ultrasound to detect physical health was at 19-20 weeks. Not sure if that is changed. If problems are detected, that gives the parents about 2 weeks to mull over their options and still make a decision before 24 weeks.

I had ultrasounds all along. They do them quite early these days since the equipment is prolific. If that helps any. I'm not saying it shouldn't be 24 weeks. That percentage is still likely to stay low anyhow. Just letting you know how things work these days.

:)

Wait, I had another thought, ultrasounds don't catch everything any way. I have a very young cousin who had a child with Down's. They had no idea it was going to be a baby with a shortened life. It might not even matter when ultrasounds are done. Wonder how often amnio is done? They had absolutely no risk factors. So we were all totally shocked.

When I was in my early 20s, a high school friend of mine had a baby with a hole in its spine. That was dreadful--essentially the baby spent the next 6 months slowly dying.

I'm not saying abortion would have been the preferred solution to that situation (abortion was illegal back then), but I am saying there is nothing noble or inspiring--certainly not sweet and sentimental-- about giving birth to a dying baby and watching it, slow motion, complete the dying process over the next few months.

Right to Life president Barbara Listing said Wednesday that women should purchase additional health insurance if they feared being raped, because the sexual crime was like a car accident.

(snip)

Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers on Wednesday approved a ballot petition that seeks to prohibit health insurance companies from covering abortion procedures, even in cases of rape or incest. The initiative would require abortion coverage to be purchased as a separate rider.

Rob-amniocentesis is normally only done if a problem is suspected or the mother is over 35 and therefore a higher risk for certain genetic problems. It cant be done before 15 weeks safely. There are risks involved but they are much lower than they used to be. There is another test called CVS that samples the placenta that can be done around 10 weeks that has a higher risk of complications like miscarriage. I wonder how those who do not believe in abortion for any reason feel about these sorts of tests? they certainly carry the risk of causing spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormality but there are some treatments that can be done in-utero and also you can be prepared for a problem baby at birth. ? Do those people get to decide whether or not a woman can have these tests done?

I appreciate the answer. I know i would never have risked anything that might've caused spontaneous abortion. Ever. If I heard those things, I'd run the other way. Sad, but true. Emotion would win out every time there, for me.

Originally, ultrasounds were only used in more high risk pregnancy situations, too... and not just so one could learn the sex of the baby or have a photograph every week, or so.

I don't think I would want to have a test performed or an interior picture taken unless it was necessary and proven safe. I see women posting ultrasound photos on social networks on a very regular basis, some even weekly, and it freaks me out just a little bit. Is it really necessary to have that many, and what are the long terms effects of having that many?

Kate, I completely agree... nothing noble or inspiring, at all.

How can I put this nicely... it's not always noble, practical OR responsible to try to "save" every possibility of life on earth. It's just not. Suffering comes in many forms, some tangible and some not... and sometimes, the best, most compassionate thing to do is to let go.

When one works closely with animal husbandry, one quickly realizes this, and does a balancing act between dedication to the animals worked with, and what is compassionate and responsible. It's not always easy to make the right choice, but when that life is your responsibility, you do what's right.

I'm just always amazed that the people that seemingly have the least amount of compassion for a certain segment of our society, are the ones that seem to have all this compassion for fetuses. I find that so strange.

As others have said, this is not a hard concept to understand. SCOTUS has ruled on this and it's really quite clear. Try as some might by introducing and signing laws that contradict the law of the land, it does not change the law of the land. And those new laws are then struck down by the courts. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility! What a waste of tax payer money -- some elected officials continually spend their time (on the taxpayer's dime) to introduce laws that are then overturned by judges whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer. Yet no complaints about that from the "personal responsibility" crowd. More hypocritical actions.

And that Rob333 is the key. You have that choice, don't you? You have the choice to say yes or no.

That is all that the pro-choice want and believe; that all women have the same rights, the right to make the decisions about their own body, what is and isn't done to their own body, their own personal reproductive rights, that they, under the guidance of their personal physicians be allowed to make the decisions that are best for the woman, not someone else.

And that is the law today, a correct law and all the attempts to dismantle the law, bit by bit, chipping away little pieces at a time is the fear that all women should have.

Just the thought of a return to pre Roe V. Wade, is a nightmare that no woman should have to go through ever again.

No one, and I mean no one can ever understand what it is like to face the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not, unless they are in that position.
One can say, all they want, that they would never do that, never "abort a baby", but unless/until they are in that position to have to make that kind of decision, one never does truly know.

No one can or will understand how desperate a woman can be to terminate a pregnancy or how far she will go to terminate that pregnancy on her own unless one is in that position and abortion is/was illegal.

I've posted before on various thread like this of what I witnessed personally working in the ER of a large major city hospital, pre Roe V. Wade.

I've posted before to what extremes women would go to, to terminate their pregnancy, cause a miscarriage to occur, and to this day, it still boggles my mind, more than 40 years later.

I still hear the hysteria of loved ones that found the woman unconscious, in a massive pool of blood, coat hanger protruding out of her, deliberately and repeatedly falling down flight after flight of stairs, swallowing various old wives tale products that would induce labor and cause miscarriages.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be that desperate, but it went on daily, with at least 3-5 women a day brought to the emergency room by EMTs in these kinds of conditions, 7 days a week. Sadly, the majority of them did terminate their pregnancies, by way of killing themselves.

Once Roe V. Wade became law, within 4 months, I never, nor did the ER, ever see the same kind of patient rushed into the ER.

Again, I'll say it, "walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me", and add, before you attempt to force your beliefs, your religion, your wants and demands on my body. Do what you want with your own, it is your body, but my body, is my body, your body is your body.
Keep your hands and your personal beliefs and demands of control off of my body and every other woman's body in this country.

littleone, that was a very moving post. We need to be reminded occasionally what it was like "back then" -- pre-Roe v. Wade. I could tell you some really hair-raising tales about illegal abortions, but everything I know is based on research, not personal experience. That is why your testimony is so important. You were there and you saw what went on; you spoke up and now we know also. I hope women never have to go back to situations like that.

I agree with you littleone. We should never overturn RoeVWade. And exactly for the ER reasons you're citing. Only for the reason you're saying it. Everything else screams within me no, but I realize we can't stop it from happening, and I have enough mercy and compassion within me, to continue to fight for those lives too. To stand along side you. I agree 100% never overturn it.

Apparently, Louie Gohmert, doesn't believe that this is not constitutional as he has introduced a bill in Congress which would forbid abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks. And, another idiot congressman wants to expand the bill to the whole country. One woman testified to having an abortion after an ultrasound revealed that the fetus she was carrying did not have a brain. Gohmert, illustrating that he is qualified to legislate on this subject, obviously having been born without a much of a brain, told her that it would be better to have her carry to full term to make sure that that fetus would actually have a chance to live.

And, the State of Arizona, in defending its law, in response to the statement that requiring these women to carry to term a fetus that will die, often a horrible, lingering death, responded, "that's the woman's problem."

I think some of those folks are assuming that women who get abortions were most likely pregnant and unmarried--"bad" women, in other words, and therefore deserve to suffer the consequences. Carrying a dying fetus? Her problem for having sex outside of marriage!

I really do believe some of those anti-abortionists are lost back in the 19th Century in terms of attitudes.

Probably thirty years ago, one of my young neighbors was told that she was carrying a fetus that was dead. Rather than abort, she endured three more months of pregnancy before giving "birth" to a baby who was already dead. How nutty is that?

In another case, a very close friend who had already born a child with a severe blood disorder and had to have his blood replaced three times became pregnant again. After being told the fetus she was carrying could not live, she endured several months of bed rest only to deliver a child that was dead within mnitues. Why should any woman have to endure such misery to prove to some political hack that she is preserving life? And at the cost of her own health, both physical and mental?

I spotted this very comprehensive article which shows many aspects of the decision to have an abortion, and not. It sort of covers all the little anecdotes and 'what if's' I'm reading on this thread. There will be no consensus on this topic, IMO. Might as well agree to disagree.

Yes, a woman carrying a dead fetus has the right to make the foolish decision to hang on to that dead 'baby' as long as possible instead of the probably better for her decision to have it removed because it is prudent to protect your kidneys since you are likely to need them in the future-it is hard on the liver as well but livers regenerate while kidneys do not. That we have a culture that can actually encourage this sort of behavior says a lot about us. It is however your right.

Rob-while there is some risk in amniocentisis, these days it is a very slight one-unlike when it was first being done. For women with pregnancies that are at risk it can be a baby saving procedure but of course the mother gets to make the decision. I am interested in how far right to life people would go since they seem to feel that they have the right to decide for a woman. Do you deny testing that is risky? There is an even more risky test that draws blood from the cord done for very specific problems.

"At a congressional committee hearing to discuss a proposed measure to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a Texas lawmaker told a woman who made the difficult choice to terminate a non-viable pregnancy that she should have carried the fetus to term anyway - even though an MRI had already revealed that he was missing a large part of his brain and didn’t have much chance of survival.

Even though medical experts have repeatedly warned that cutting off legal abortion access at 20 weeks will force more women to carry non-viable fetuses to term, several states have enacted “fetal pain” bans over the past several years. After Arizona passed this type of stringent measure in 2012, the volunteer organizations that counsel women whose unborn children die from fatal fetal defects braced for an influx of new families dealing with that grief. When that restrictive law ended up in court, and opponents pointed out that it’s cruel to require women to give birth to children only to be forced to watch them die, Arizona defended its abortion ban by claiming that those fetal abnormalities are “the woman’s problem.”

Just earlier this week, Arizona’s abortion ban was struck down by a panel of judges, sparing the women in that state from potentially devastating effects of being denied the choice that Zink had. Nonetheless, that hasn’t deterred the anti-choice politicians in the state. Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R), who has repeatedly pushed the 20-week abortion ban for the District of Columbia, recently announced that he intends to expand H.R. 1797 to apply to women in every state.

On Thursday, Christy Zink testified in opposition to H.R. 1797, a 20-week abortion ban that anti-abortion representatives of Congress keep attempting to impose upon the women in the nation’s capital. Abortion opponents claim that 20-week bans are necessary to prevent “fetal pain.” But in her testimony, Zink pointed out it’s misleading to suggest that this abortion restriction would serve this purpose, since forcing her to carry her pregnancy to term would have actually caused her unborn son considerable pain.

At 21 weeks, Zink’s doctors discovered that her fetus had no brain function. That type of fetal abnormality was impossible to detect earlier in her pregnancy. “If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain,” Zink explained. “If he had survived the pregnancy - which was not certain - he might never have left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.”

In order to justify his support for H.R. 1797, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggested that Zink should have given birth to her son anyway, regardless of the pain that may have caused her family. The congressman told a story about a different couple who decided to give birth to a fetus with different types of disabilities - suggesting that Zink should have made the same choice for her son, instead of deciding to “rip him apart”:

GOHMERT: Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both. I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wait, like that couple did, and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart? So. These are ethical issues, they’re moral issues, they’re difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted. But it just seems like, it’s a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions."

Kate, they're either lost in the 19th century, or lost somewhere in the old testament while trying to decide which parts to follow and which to discard, in my opinion...

Going slightly off topic to make a point...

Yesterday, I had the misfortune to read part of an exchange in a comments section following an article on same sex marriage... and the first quote brought into play was the typical Leviticus whatever passage is usually quoted, and someone else followed with one from Deuteronomy that mentioned a bride must be virginal or she should be put to death... and the odd thing is that the original poster responded with a resounding "you make me sick. FU!"

How wonderfully christian such responses are, and they highlight something we have come to call "selective christianity".

It reminds me greatly of the selective compassion sometimes shown, picking and choosing who is deemed worthy of charity or exceptions. It's amazing how closely related a lot of the threads are in that "selective mindset".

The Federal law is the law, which supersedes any state laws...

I can't imagine how or why legislators think they are qualified to make medical decisions for their constituents based upon their own preconceived notions salted with a bit of ye olde time religion.

c6zr1 may be long gone. I'll just comment to say that I see that comment as a little reality check. Amidst all the reasons for rationalizing abortion, especially when the line between "fetus" and "baby" has gotten fuzzy, there's some terrible sadness.

Just a comment; from c6zr1, now one from me. BTW c6s post most certainly does relate to the OP, as it concerns post-20 week abortions.

If we are going to have a non intervention policy on fetuses and babies then logically you have to have a non intervention when the baby comes out too soon or incomplete or with its various bits all scrambled up-if pro-lifers are in fact concerned about the pain of these babies then why do they allow these malfunctions of the reproductive system to be tortured in hospital ICU's? Becase of the repressing nature of pain medications there is usually definite limit to how much can be given if any.

That is the slippery slope-where to stop-if nature or god must take his course then why do we have neo-natal unites? Are parents going to be required to have any and everything done to keep a dying child alive as long as is medically possible or the other way around-remember that not very long ago virtually none of these children would have lived since we did not have the medical expertise to keep them alive.

I was interested in docksides quote from the Arizona situation and got this more complete quote.

" With due respect, that’s the woman’s problem,” responded David Cole, Arizona’s solicitor general. “She should have made that decision earlier.”

this strange man is OK with an abortion of a brainless baby as long as it is done sooner than 20 weeks-lets let this guy make all the decisions.

If the issue was nothing more than a Christian's opinion and that was it, no one, and I mean no one would be having a problem with the opinion.

But that's the real problem. It isn't an opinion that they or the rest of us are talking about and it appears you don't get that at all.

These so, so called opinions as you call them, are not opinions at all. They are out right plans to change the law as set forth by SCOTUS in their ruling on Roe V. Wade, and reverse the ruling.

The plan is to take the Christian Right's religious views and turn them into law, make abortion for any reason against the law.

And who, is the biggest pusher of these constant attempts to derail Roe V. Wade? Who is the biggest pusher of these constant new ways to chip away at Roe V. Wade? Who is the biggest pusher of these constant new laws that take away more and more of a woman's rights to control her own body?

By gosh, it's the Christian Right. The Fundamentalist Christian right, and who are they supported by? Heck it's the infamous GOP, the so called Grand Old Party.

Now is that the "grand old party" that wants to control women's lives, bodies, reproductive rights, keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and under the subserviant control of men?

Sure looks that way.

So please keep this idea that Christian opinion is not allowed crap out of the conversation when it comes to women's rights, women's rights to control their own body, because you are talking about one thing and the majority of us are talking about something else.
We are talking about the consistent attempts of the Christian Right to take these rights away. and that Demi is not opinion of Christians, those are outright facts and plans to take those rights away.

Yup, it's religion again, Christian religion trying to rule the roost, control the laws and, as usual, they are always aimed at women.

What some who are obviously comprehension challenged as well, in understanding is that because Christians have certain opinions that it is not necessarily based on Christianity.

People can be opposed to murdering a twenty-four week old fetus because they think it's the wrong thing to do.

They can also feel that way based on their religious beliefs, but as so many are quick to point out, people have morals without religion or a belief in God.

A belief in God does not erase one's natural moral outrage at certain acts and practices.

To assign efforts to regulate certain abortions by Christians cannot be attributed entirely to Christianity.

In my case, attribute it to morality.
I also do not believe that laws should be based on any religion.

In that sense, in those instances, religion is not infringing on anyone's right and no one is attempting to enforce anyone's religion by legislation--only morality.

Atheists, agnostics and non believers have opinions on subjects that aren't attributable to their non belief in God.

Most of all of think that child molestation and murder should e against the law--Christians, non Christians, and others.
Most of you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Of course there are some Christians whose opinions are influenced by their religion, and some Christians and others whose opinions are separate from their religion, or they may coincide. However, it's easy to separate it.

How do we know whether you are influenced by your non belief in God? Do we want "heathens" to make our laws?

See how that can be turned?

How do you separate your non belief and your moral opinion?
How do you separate Christianity and one's moral opinion?

As long as a religion is not established, by the government, it matters not the source of one's opinion, or morality, or whether it has a source or not.

Pidge just made my point perfectly in her post on another thread:

" Posted by pidge z6PA (My Page) on
Sat, May 25, 13 at 10:32

"One's ethics reside in the self, no matter what belief is or is not professed."

Read the literature from the religious right Christian groups that run the anti-abortion groups. They state specifically that their religious views are directing their opposition to abortion and they make no bones about the religious basis for the various laws they try to get passed, mostly at the state level nowadays.

demi, you are entitled to your own beliefs. We are talking about the anti-abortion positions of certain right-wing fundamentalist Christian groups that loudly proclaim their religious goal in passing anti-abortion laws.

When we mention "Christian," we are not necessarily thinking about demi the individual at all, so please do not take generalizations (based on 100s of thousands of other people in the group) to be aimed at you the individual and your individual beliefs. If your beliefs differ from the 100s of thousands that are being referred to, then those references are NOT to you, so don't try to apply them to yourself in that case.

Thanks, Kate, for attempting to make it clear to Demi what we are talking about.

Christian right, is Christian right, fundamentalist Christians that are trying to control the laws of this country through their religious beliefs, their personal religious beliefs.

They are Christians, and they claim to be Christians and they claim to be doing this through their religion.

There are Christians that believe the same way and are not Christians Fundamentalist Christians and there are supporters of this Fundamentalist Christians that are not Christian.

The Christians and their supporters are attempting to make laws that follow their Christian belief, therefore they are combining church and state, they are attempting to establish their religious beliefs as laws and that, in essence, is establishing a Religion by the government.

Ones personal religious belief has no place in government in this country and if you can not separate your personal religious belief from you duties as a government official, then you do not belong being a government official in any capacity.

It's that simple, Demi.

John Kennedy, ran for president and the fear, huge fear was that the Vatican would rule the White House. Kennedy had to publicly speak about the difference between his personal religious beliefs and his political beliefs; he had to show and explain that they where totally separate and that neither would intertwine in his being president.

He did a good enough job in convincing his constituents, good enough that he even won the support of the Jewish vote in a day when Catholics where not high on the list of those that where trusted or politically supported by the Jewish vote.

morality can be a judgement call and an opinion, and an opinion can be one that is neither right nor wrong, except in the mind of those making the judgement call on morality.

Attempting to push one's personal moral value on others may not always be the correct thing to do, especially when one involves religion in the mix with morality.

As for "heathen's" making the laws. I wonder, Demi, have you looked up the definitions of that word? You might want to do so and maybe, just maybe, think twice about the use of that word. It could be seen as offensive.

John Kennedy, ran for president and the fear, huge fear was that the Vatican would rule the White House. Kennedy had to publicly speak about the difference between his personal religious beliefs and his political beliefs; he had to show and explain that they where totally separate and that neither would intertwine in his being president.

And those people, who were so fearful of having a Catholic President, they are the ones who are now trying to force the nation to enact laws that are in line with their fundamentalist, far right wing religious beliefs. And not only abortion, but women's rights, education, science, immigration, commerce, etc, etc.

How ironic.

I think I'd rather have direction from Pope Francis than the wingnuts.

As for "heathen's" making the laws. I wonder, Demi, have you looked up the definitions of that word? You might want to do so and maybe, just maybe, think twice about the use of that word. It could be seen as offensive.

*

Making a point that some that view Christians with disdain can also be regarded as heathens by Christians.

So was MY point.

I never assumed anyone was referring to me.

I was illustrating how, absent anyone declaring that their position on a topic is ENTIRELY based on religious beliefs, how can you know? Therefore, absent any establishment of religion, it matters not what motivates a person to have an opinion. My point of view on any given topic is not less important or valid than yours because of my spiritual beliefs.

I see the defensiveness of some has disallowed broader thinking of this subject, which if considered, naturally tends to put a damper on Christian Bashing.

And if those atheists were as solid in their belief that there was no God that believers in God are that there is, those atheists would laugh off or dismiss those believers.

But they don't--they waste energy ABHORING people for their belief in something they can't or won't believe in.

Ask yourself--why don't Christians or believers ABHOR those outspoken atheists for insisting there is no God?

I've never heard a Christian or believer in God say that they ABHOR atheists or agnostics. Here on this forum I've heard posters that believe in a God emphatically state that they have no desire or need to try to convince anyone there is a God, that that is a personal choice for each person to make.

It simply doesn't upset us that some of you are just so sure there is no God and that we are accused of needing crutches of fairy tales, or that non believers are superior to those that believe because they are so strong they can get through life without a belief in God. We certainly don't ABHOR you for saying those things.

It's water off our back.

You know why? Because of our faith.

We aren't petty that way.

We love everyone--may not like them, but most everyone we love in an all encompassing way--as God does. Or at least we try very hard.

Abhor anyone because they exercise their freedom to speak of their belief and love for God?

That's just sad. Very pathetic and sad, and a waste of time and energy, in my opinion.

Abhoring anyone, or their actions--for believing in God and stating so, is indicative to me that someone has doubts about what THEY profess to believe.

I've never heard a Christian or believer in God say that they ABHOR atheists or agnostics.

Then you've missed a few threads in HT.

One self-proclaimed Christian - now banned - ranted against an atheist as a threat to all Christians in the U.S. -- and the prominent atheist had been dead for 18 years.

There have been other barbs and rants against current U.S. and U.K. atheist thinkers in HT threads. I don't follow atheist thought, so I'm not familiar with the names. I do remember that Maher has taken a lot of flak in HT for his views on Christianity (and other religions).

I suppose there are some atheists or non-theists that abhor Christians on principle, but I think the point that yq makes is that there are some atheists that abhor what some Christians are trying to do, which is to make law according to their Christian principles at the expense of any other belief system, including non-belief.

That's exactly right, Pidge... and David's newest thread shows just how pushy and devious some organizations are in their will to issue control over the lives and beliefs of others, infiltrating what are supposed to be secular areas, such as health care, education, our very legislation state to state... it's getting a bit offensive just how pushy some of these organizations can be.

I think the point that yq makes is that there are some atheists that abhor what some Christians are trying to do, which is to make law according to their Christian principles at the expense of any other belief system, including non-belief.